Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 712 (MAD)

A. D. Revathy v. State

2025-01-31

BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2025
ORDER : 1. Challenge has been made in the present Writ Petition is to the order of suspension dated 10.1.2025 passed by the 3 rd respondent, who is the Secretary of Pachaiyappa's Trust against the petitioner herein, who is working as an Assistant Professor (Philosophy) for conducting a Programme on the eve of 7 th year completion of study circle and launching of an Annual Journal Title (Sol/Word) and the souvenir journal releasing function on 7-1-2025 at Thiruvalluvar Arangam in the college premises without taking permission from the concerned or informing anyone in the College including the Principal. 2. According to the petitioner, he had completed Ph. D. in Philosophy in the year 2007 and joined as Assistant Professor of Philosophy in Pachaiyappa's College, Chennai and he completed unblemished services from 2016 till date and he is also in-charge of handling under graduate and post graduate courses in philosophy and also the supervisor for the Research Scholars doing their Ph.D. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the college in the year 2018, the College started the 'The Pachaiyappa's Study Circle' as an autonomous academic arena to encourage the students of all departments are encouraged to develop their knowledge and skill in every field of society. The said study circle was formed to create platform for all the students to discuss critically about various books and its authors in order to enlighten them to ensure that their knowledge beyond the books are taken to greater heights. One such efforts was 'completion of 7 years of the Pachaiyappa's Study Circle' which is attended by the students from all departments and the teaching faculty of the college, which is a very popular activity among the college and the students which conducts periodic sessions monthly, wherein, eminent persons from the fields of literature, science, politics, law, medicine are invited to participate. The main purpose of the function of the study circle is to invite eminent personalities to discuss about various books and authors. The main purpose of the function of the study circle is to invite eminent personalities to discuss about various books and authors. One such event was on the eve of completion of 7th year study circle conducted on 7-1-2025, the petitioner who was the In-charge of the said study circle, organized to launch an Annual Journal Volume-I published by Pachaiyappa's Study Circle on January 2025, to which, the petitioner was the Editor of the Souvenir edition and for the purpose of the function to launch an Annual Journal titled 'Sol/Word”, the petitioner had invited an eminent, who happens to be a Member of Parliament for the discussion on the souvenir edition. 4. However, after the function was over, surprisingly the 3rd respondent has issued the present impugned order of suspension placing the petitioner on suspension for serious of misconduct alleged against the petitioner pending contemplation of a definite charge for the above said act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the suspension order dated 10.01.2025 is purely with mala fide intention and bias as similar events had taken place ever since the Pachaiyappa's Study Circle came into existence from the year 2018 and from the very inception of the study circle, it had witnessed lectures of 32 eminent personalities and had critically discussion around 34 books during previous occasions. The Study Circle has invited several sitting Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly and other eminent persons. When that being the case, the impugned suspension order issued by the 3rd respondent is only with an intention for having invited a particular Member of Parliament, more so, the order issued by the 3rd respondent in the capacity of the Secretary of Pachaiyappa's Trust and not as the Secretary of the College Committee. The faculty of the college comes under the College Committee and not under the Members of the Trust or Trustees. 6. The learned counsel would further submit that when the function was properly intimated to the 3rd respondent through 4th respondent and the 4th respondent being a College Committee Member as well as the Principal of the College had directed the other teaching staff members to participate in the function by posting invitation through Whatsapp message. 6. The learned counsel would further submit that when the function was properly intimated to the 3rd respondent through 4th respondent and the 4th respondent being a College Committee Member as well as the Principal of the College had directed the other teaching staff members to participate in the function by posting invitation through Whatsapp message. In fact, the 4th respondent being a Committee Member, was unable to attend the meeting due to personal reasons and sent her representative one Dr.P.Venkatesan, Head of Department of Chemistry/Principal in-charge on her behalf to deliver the presidential address. The learned counsel would further submit that in the impugned order of suspension, it was stated that the petitioner's high handed action in conducting the meeting without taking permission or without informing anyone including the Principal is reprehensible and therefore, calls for disciplinary action, but in fact, the petitioner had informed the Principal about this and they also purchased Mementos to be given to the invitees in the name of the Principal and the bill was also sent to the Principal. He would further submit that the suspension order is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and the same has been passed without any basis, but with mala fide intention and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr.J.Ravindran, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner has not violated any norms nor acted against the College Committee or the Trust and the impugned order of suspension ought not to have been issued as against the petitioner since various functions have been conducted for improving the knowledge of the students by inviting the eminent persons from the fields of literature, science, politics, law and medicine, etc. for discussion on the subjects. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Secretary, Pachaiyappa's Trust and the Principal of Pachaiyappa's College, respondents 3 and 4 herein, would submit that the impugned order of suspension has been rightly issued against the petitioner since the petitioner did not obtain any permission from the Pachaiyappa's Trust or Committee of the Pachaiyappa's College to conduct the Pachaiyappa's Study Circle Function on 07.01.2025. In fact, the petitioner has not informed the Trust about the invitee who is a learned Member of Parliament as a Chief Guest to speak under the aegis of Pachaiyappa's Study Circle on 0.01.2025 at Thiruvalluvar Hall situated in the premises of Pachaiyappa's College and the petitioner has violated the norms of Pachaiyappa's Trust as the administrators of the Trust were not consulted for hosting such functions inside the premises of the college and hence, the Pachaiyappa's College Committee has resolved viewed it as serious misconduct and the Committee contemplated framing the charges against the petitioner. Meanwhile, as her continuation as academic staff is prejudicial to the interest of the institution, they have placed under suspension with immediate effect and the Committee has every right to proceed against the petitioner by framing the charges. 9. Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondents would submit that the suspension order has been issued taking into paramount interest of the students since the petitioner has conducted the function without taking permission from the College Committee, which requires no interference. 10. Mr.K.Elangoo, learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent has stated that on earlier occasions, various meetings have been held and the permissions have been sought, but this time, no permission was sought. There are students joining together in the premises and tried to create havoc which has to be considered by this Court. 11. The learned Addl.Advocate General pointed out that Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976 , provides 'the constitution of committee', which envisages that the educational agency of every college, other than minority college, shall constitute a committee and the term of office of the members of the committee shall be three years. The committee shall consist of representatives of educational agency, who shall be nominated by such educational agency, provided that no employee of the college shall be nominated under this category, viz., Principal of the college and two senior most Professors. He also pointed out that Rule 9 provides that the Educational Agency shall nominate one of its representatives as Secretary of the Committee, provided that it shall be open to the educational agency to nominate the Principal as Secretary of the Committee. He also pointed out that Rule 9 provides that the Educational Agency shall nominate one of its representatives as Secretary of the Committee, provided that it shall be open to the educational agency to nominate the Principal as Secretary of the Committee. The Secretary shal function for and on behalf of the committee and the educational agency and also shall act according to the resolutions passed at the meeting of the Committee. Further, the Secretary shall not interfere in the internal administration of the college such as admission, examination, promotion of student and other academic matters as also the administration of special fee funds, which shall be made the exclusive responsibility of the Principal. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the Principal shall act according to the resolutions passed by the College Committee and not by the Secretary to Pachayaippa's Trust. 11.1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Advocate General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 and perused the entire materials available on record. 12. Pachaiyappa's College is founded on an act of Philanthropy of Pachaiyappas Mudaliar who under a will has dedicated most of his properties for the purpose of establishing educational institutions for the welfare of the society at large. In fact, it was the the first Educational Institution in South India which was not funded by the British for establishing colleges as the College was funded from the Pachaiyappas Mudaliar's Will in 1842. The College has produced notable figures who excelled many fields. The College has also produced many politicians, like Shri. C.N. Annadurai, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Shri, EVK Sampath, Politician, K.C. Reddy, First Chief Minister of Old State of Mysore etc. The list of eminents and politician that this college has produced endlessly who belongs to different political ideas not confining to one school of thought. Apart from producing several bureaucrats literally figures, film makers and in other fields whose contribution have been notable for their achievement as well as to the society. The Pachaiyappa's College Administration is governed by Board of Trustrees of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board which overseas the development of the institutions and managing fund raising efforts. The Board under the Trust has various other institutions in this State, viz., Kandasamy Naidu College for Women, Cuddalore. 13. The Pachaiyappa's College Administration is governed by Board of Trustrees of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board which overseas the development of the institutions and managing fund raising efforts. The Board under the Trust has various other institutions in this State, viz., Kandasamy Naidu College for Women, Cuddalore. 13. It is seen that Book release function and discussion on the book release by eminent personalities would no way hampers the administration of the College and the Pachayappa's Study Circle is a part of the academic and not part of the administration, which is started by the Professors and Assistant Professors of the College, which is totally different from the administration of the College. 14. It is also seen from the records produced in the present case and the arguments put forth by the respective learned counsel, it is clear that the petitioner, as Assistant Profession of Philosophy, has to report to the 4 th respondent/Principal of the College regarding any academic events and it is 4 th respondent who in turn also being the part of the College Committee, accords permission to conduct the functions and not by the administrators of the Pahaiyappa's Trust. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had informed the 4 th respondent about the conducting of the Programme on the eve of 7 th year completion of study circle and launching of an Annual Journal Title (Sol/Word) and the souvenir journal releasing function on 7-1-2025 at Thiruvalluvar Arangam. 15. It is seen from the records that the 4 th respondent, Dr.Baby Gulnaz, who is the Principal In-charge of the Pachaiyappa's College has consented and also penned down 'Principal's Message in the Journal. It appears that in previous occasions, similar functions were hosted. It is the duty of the Principal to accord permission by following the norms of the College Committee and since the 4 th respondent who is also a member of the College Committee, there is no reason to believe for the petitioner to seek further permission from the Pachaiyappa's Trust which looks after the affairs and administration of the various colleges functioning under the Trust. 16. Further, the College Committee of the Pechaiyappa's Trust has no role to play in the academics of the college, though the management and running of the college is under the Pachaiyappa's Trust. 16. Further, the College Committee of the Pechaiyappa's Trust has no role to play in the academics of the college, though the management and running of the college is under the Pachaiyappa's Trust. The members of the College Committee cannot have direct control over the academics of the college as conducting research oriented lectures on the books being discussed does not form part of the duty of the College Committee members to have control over the same. If that is so, every action of a Professor in the College touching the academics of her subject will depend upon the whims and fancies of the College Committee members. This would not pave the way for a healthy atmosphere inside the College and for the growth academic intellects among the students. Merely because, a Member of Parliament was called as a Chief Guest that does not warrant to the College Trust Members to jump into action to penalize the petitioner or petitioner like Professors who work for the improvement knowledge beyond books in the interest of academics of the students. 17. It appears that the petitioner has got permission from the Principal of the College before conducting the function, while the impugned suspension order passed by the 3 rd respondent contrarily states that the petitioner has conducted the meeting without taking permission or informing anyone in the College including the Principal, is reprehensible and is found to be false and not acceptable. 18. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the same has been issued by the 3rd respondent in the capacity of Secretary of Pachaiyappas Trust. In fact, the Trust, as a whole, cannot have any power to suspend or dismiss or even to take disciplinary action as against the faculties or any staff. It is the College Committee which includes the President and 6 other Members to initiate action by passing resolutions. However, the impugned order issued in the name of the Secretary, Pachaiyappa's Trust cannot be construed as an order passed by the College Committee to which the Secretary of the Trust has no jurisdiction. The function of the Secretary of the College Committee is different while the Secretary of the Pachayaippa's Trust who manages administration of the present College and other institutions and the properties owned by the Trust, is different. 19. The function of the Secretary of the College Committee is different while the Secretary of the Pachayaippa's Trust who manages administration of the present College and other institutions and the properties owned by the Trust, is different. 19. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the impugned suspension order dated 10.01.2025 issued by the Secretary, Pachaiyappa's Trust lacks jurisdiction and not competent to issue impugned order placing the petitioner under suspension and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 20. Accordingly the impugned order of suspension, dated 10.01.2025 passed by the 3 rd respondent is hereby revoked. 21. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.